The Arizona Water Settlement Act and urban water supplies

Abstract

The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA 2004) when implemented will allocate to two Native American tribes, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) and the Tohono O’odham Nation (TON) almost ten percent of Arizona’s total developed water supply, which is 7.04 million acre-feet a year. The successful passage of AWSA, given the scale of the water rights settlement and competing uses for finite water supplies, is the topic of this paper. Key motivations for the settlement are that: (1) the 653,500 acre-feet a year allocation is around a third of the GRIC’s Gila River Adjudication2001 claim; (2) the GRIC signed a number of water leases and exchanges providing water to municipalities and has not ruled out signing more; and (3) AWSA resolved more than tribal water claims; it also settled thorny issues of Central Arizona Project (CAP) debt repayment (for $2 billion in construction costs) and division of water allocation between federal (Indian) and state (non-Indian) uses including the reallocation of high priority uncontracted CAP water to cities.

Keywords

Native American water rights Water reallocation Water rights settlement Central Arizona project

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas (SAHRA), a National Science Foundation, Science and Technology Center (Agreement No. EAR-9876800). Thanks also to the helpful comments and suggestions of two anonymous reviewers.

AWSA Hearing (2003) Arizona Water Settlements Act: J. Hearing on S. 437 Before the Subcomm. on Water and Power of the Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources and the Comm. on Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. 23 (2003) (testimony of Richard Narcia, Governor, Gila River Indian Community). http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=945&wit_id=2661 (Accessed 14 Sep 2007)

Bark RH, Jacobs KL (2009) Indian Water Rights Settlements and Water Management Innovations: The Role of the Arizona Water Settlements Act. Water Resour. Res. accepted February 2009Google Scholar

Blumm MC, Becker DH, Smith JD (2006) The Mirage of Indian Reserved Water Rights and Western Streamflow Restoration in the McCarran Amendment Era: A Promise Unfulfilled. Environ Law 36(4):1157–1203Google Scholar

Glennon RJ, Culp PW (2002) The last green lagoon: how and why the Bush Administration should save the Colorado River Delta. Ecol Law Q 28(4):903–992Google Scholar

Globe Equity (1935) United States of America v. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Globe Equity No. 59, et al., entered in the United States District Court for the District of ArizonaGoogle Scholar

IGA (2000) A resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Pima County relating to water; authorizing and approving the execution of a supplemental intergovernmental agreement with the City of Tucson and Pima County Flood control District regarding effluent. Pima County Resolution No. 2000-28. Sec. 5.2.2.1Google Scholar

ROD (2007) Record of Decision: Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Interim Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. December 2007. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.Google Scholar